Originally posted by Masterjaden
I'm sorry, but the plain view doctrine only applies to an obvious crime...The supreme court has ruled that the appearance of a gun is not
justification to assume that a crime has been committed and cannot be used on its' lonesome to proceed as though they have probable cause to suspect
a crime has been committed.

Again you are wrong.. If I stop a vehicle for speeding and their is an open container of alcohol or illegal drugs in plain sight, I can take action.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
OUR LIBERTY MUST COME BEFORE EVERYTHING....Especially, a police officer's safety who assumes the risk of the mantle by accepting his pay. Jaden

Then it would behoove you to actually learn the law and understand how your rights work in conjunction with those laws. You dont get to pick anbd
choose, which is what you are trying to do.

The latest Supreme Court action dealing with Law Enforcement that curtailed their authoirty to search stems from Arizona vs. Gant. All that did was
restrict how a search incident to arrest works, which is to say if I stop you for speeding, and you have an arrest warrant, I can no longer search
your car UNLESS I can articulate contrband in plain view OR the stop is based on a traffic violation dealing with DWI / DUI.

Again please learn the law and how it works before making a claim that is not true.

Back to that whole thing about reasonable suspciaion and proibable cause, not to mention California laws that govern the possession and sale / resale
of firearms.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Yes, it has to be evidence....Is a cigarette butt evidence that a person is an arsonist????

If they are in the area as the fire started they can be stop and identified and depdnding on the persons actions could be detained for further
invetigation. If its determined the 2 arent related, he is on his way. As was the case when the officer determined the guns were airsoft guns.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
It has to be evidence AFTER a crime has been committed. Or there has to be reasonable suspicion that a crime HAS been committed.

Reasonable suspicion allows further investigation. The result of that investigation reveals 2 possibilities -
* - the person you are investigating did not commit a crime
* - the person you are investigating did commit a crime.

Reasonable suspicion leads to Probable Cause.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
The supreme court has ruled that the presence of a firearm is NOT evidence that a crime has been committed... therefore there is no evidence of a
crime, therefore a firearm in public view does NOT constitute evidence of a crime, plain view or NOT....

Jaden

You keep coming back to this old argument which ignores all other case law on the topic. Possession of a firearm is legal unless its being used in a
manner that is inconsistent with state law. Inconsistent with state law would be the sale / resale of a firearm while not propoerly licensed to do
so.

Its the same with businesses who sell alcohol. In order to obtain their liquer license they agree to certain conditions, one of which is inspection of
records and walk through by law enforcement. Open carry is not legal in the state of California (dont get me started on that crap law), a person must
be licesned to not only buy but to also sell a firearm.

The call the police received / what the officer saw driving by was what looked like guns being sold at a garage sale, a violation of California law if
the people selling the items dont have the proper license or if the people they are selling to dont have the right certificate to purchase.

The officer invesitgated, determined they were airsoft, and left.

There was no law violation by the people acting like deuschebags..
There was no law violation by the ofifcers,,
There was no 42 USC 1983 violation by the officers.

Yes, it has to be evidence....Is a cigarette butt evidence that a person is an arsonist????

It has to be evidence AFTER a crime has been committed. Or there has to be reasonable suspicion that a crime HAS been committed.

The supreme court has ruled that the presence of a firearm is NOT evidence that a crime has been committed... therefore there is no evidence of a
crime, therefore a firearm in public view does NOT constitute evidence of a crime, plain view or NOT....

The weapons are in plain sight at a garage sale and a call was made that they were being sold there. The officer pulled up, observed the rifles in
PLAIN VIEW, PLAIN VIEW, PLAIN VIEW. Is it sinking in. Even if no call was made there are rifles being sold in a garage sale so if I drove by and
observed the weapons I could walk on to the property and investigate without a search warrant. No arrest was made because the weapons were airsoft and
due to the lethality of the weapons and the fact they looked real could be articulated as an exigent circumstance. This really just adds more fuel to
the fire and backs up the officer.

I already gave you the case law maybe u should read it cause you arent getting it

Back to that whole thing about reasonable suspciaion and proibable cause, not to mention California laws that govern the possession and sale / resale
of firearms.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Yes, it has to be evidence....Is a cigarette butt evidence that a person is an arsonist????

If they are in the area as the fire started they can be stop and identified and depdnding on the persons actions could be detained for further
invetigation. If its determined the 2 arent related, he is on his way. As was the case when the officer determined the guns were airsoft guns.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
It has to be evidence AFTER a crime has been committed. Or there has to be reasonable suspicion that a crime HAS been committed.

Reasonable suspicion allows further investigation. The result of that investigation reveals 2 possibilities -
* - the person you are investigating did not commit a crime
* - the person you are investigating did commit a crime.

Reasonable suspicion leads to Probable Cause.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
The supreme court has ruled that the presence of a firearm is NOT evidence that a crime has been committed... therefore there is no evidence of a
crime, therefore a firearm in public view does NOT constitute evidence of a crime, plain view or NOT....

Jaden

You keep coming back to this old argument which ignores all other case law on the topic. Possession of a firearm is legal unless its being used in a
manner that is inconsistent with state law. Inconsistent with state law would be the sale / resale of a firearm while not propoerly licensed to do
so.

Its the same with businesses who sell alcohol. In order to obtain their liquer license they agree to certain conditions, one of which is inspection of
records and walk through by law enforcement. Open carry is not legal in the state of California (dont get me started on that crap law), a person must
be licesned to not only buy but to also sell a firearm.

The call the police received / what the officer saw driving by was what looked like guns being sold at a garage sale, a violation of California law if
the people selling the items dont have the proper license or if the people they are selling to dont have the right certificate to purchase.

The officer invesitgated, determined they were airsoft, and left.

There was no law violation by the people acting like deuschebags..
There was no law violation by the ofifcers,,
There was no 42 USC 1983 violation by the officers.

Let me give you an example that is similar to this. Myself and several other law enforcement officers responded to a house, where 911 received a call
about a guy in a house with weapons and was suicidal and had rifles. When we got to the house the front door and rear door were wide open.Even though
we didnt have to we announced ourselves and entered the residence. We found rifles placed at every window and doorway with extra ammo but he was not
there. He had an epiphany and checked himself into a hospital for evaluation.

Did we violate the 4th amedment? I already know the answer because we asked this to our lawyer along with the CA here in Virginia. We already knew the
answer to the question but we still wanted to get more insight. There is very little difference between this and the video for this thread. I will
wait to see what people say and will present the outcome. I am sure the cops on here will get it immediately

Let me give you an example that is similar to this. Myself and several other law enforcement officers responded to a house, where 911 received a call
about a guy in a house with weapons and was suicidal and had rifles. When we got to the house the front door and rear door were wide open.Even though
we didnt have to we announced ourselves and entered the residence. We found rifles placed at every window and doorway with extra ammo but he was not
there. He had an epiphany and checked himself into a hospital for evaluation.

Did we violate the 4th amedment? I already know the answer because we asked this to our lawyer along with the CA here in Virginia. We already knew the
answer to the question but we still wanted to get more insight. There is very little difference between this and the video for this thread. I will
wait to see what people say and will present the outcome. I am sure the cops on here will get it immediately

No you didn't.

You had suspicion to believe he posed a danger to himself or the public. That is not the same as someone walking down the street with a gun strapped
on. The supreme court has ruled that the mere presence of a gun is NOT suspicion enough to detain a person or seize property.

Also, the staging of the guns is indicative of a desire to assault and provides more evidence that there is a present and immediate danger.

The problem arises when you assume that someone who is exercising their right to keep and bear arms without any other indication or having reasonably
suspected of already having committed a crime is harassed and is detained or has property confiscated.

Here's the thing. If the man had been home and the door hadn't been open, you would NOT have the right on an anonymous 911 call to break into the
house or even ENTER the house without permission.

If he had come to the door when you knocked and you could not obviously seen staged weapons, then you would NOT have been justified to enter his home
without his consent.

It doesn't matter if he was about to take pot shots into the neighborhood. You have no reason to suspect he will until he does, unless he says to
you, "I'm thinking of taking my own life" or "I have lots of guns and I"m going to use them".

Now if he says "You do not have consent to enter my premises and I have guns and will defend myself unless you return with a warrant" That is NOT
probable cause to enter his house. You must obtain a warrant and explain your justification for requiring a warrant to a judge.

I promise you, if you do the above, there will come a time, when people start shooting back and they will be justified to do so.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
I'm sorry, but the plain view doctrine only applies to an obvious crime...The supreme court has ruled that the appearance of a gun is not
justification to assume that a crime has been committed and cannot be used on its' lonesome to proceed as though they have probable cause to suspect
a crime has been committed.

Again you are wrong.. If I stop a vehicle for speeding and their is an open container of alcohol or illegal drugs in plain sight, I can take action.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
OUR LIBERTY MUST COME BEFORE EVERYTHING....Especially, a police officer's safety who assumes the risk of the mantle by accepting his pay. Jaden

Then it would behoove you to actually learn the law and understand how your rights work in conjunction with those laws. You dont get to pick anbd
choose, which is what you are trying to do.

The latest Supreme Court action dealing with Law Enforcement that curtailed their authoirty to search stems from Arizona vs. Gant. All that did was
restrict how a search incident to arrest works, which is to say if I stop you for speeding, and you have an arrest warrant, I can no longer search
your car UNLESS I can articulate contrband in plain view OR the stop is based on a traffic violation dealing with DWI / DUI.

Again please learn the law and how it works before making a claim that is not true.

WRONG...

It would behoove YOU to learn where authority comes from and the fact that any law that violates our inalienable rights is NOT a legal law.

As officers of the law, they are sworn to first uphold the rights of the people.

You are NOT allowed to enforce a law that violates the rights of the people.

This is the type of thing that leads to REVOLUTION.....

WE MUST hold the rights and liberties of the people above supercilious laws that violate those rights.

The people grant the authority to the govt.

The most basic premise of our govt is that it exists and all authority exists with the consent of the governed.

We have iterated the authority that the people have granted in the constitution. You must read it and you must support it.

The courts ARE NOT what support the authority. They do not GRANT the authority, They only are a check on govt over reaching their authority.

The final check is the people.
And if law enforcement and the govt continue to over reach without the other checks being sufficient to maintain the rights of the people. We are
going to have some SERIOUS PROBLEMS on our hands.

I am not threatening to do so myself. I am informing what can be done to AVOID that from occurring.

The people WILL start to stand up. They always have when abuses continue.

Law enforcement have been killing, infringing and doing whatever they hell they want for too long and people are getting tired of it.

That is what leads to people trying to enforce their rights like in this video.

PLEASE do yourself a favor and read the constitution. It was written in plain English for a reason. It is meant for EVERY citizen to be able to
understand it.

Don't let people fool you into thinking that it is open to interpretation. It is NOT. I am saying these things to you and others as a warning because
when looking at history, when things start to go the way they have been it inevitably has led to one thing and it is the one thing that no one really
wants.

If you feel this strongly then maybe you should actually learn the law, learn how it works, in addition to knowing what your rights are and how those
rights work in conjunction with law. If you are going to invoke Supreme Court decisions then maybe you should read beyond only the ones that support
your position. You also need to quit with the supreme court ruling on "owning a gun is and of itself not a crime".

That constant reference, while ignoring the other Supreme Court case law decisions as well as California State law, is why your logic and argument
fails.

I and several others have laid it out to you in addition to links and reference to the laws (state up to federal). Ignoring them simply because you
dont agree with them does not invalidate them.

Your argument is along the same lines as others who complain about their 4th amendment right being violated by going through TSA screening. What they,
and you in this case, don't understand is -

While traveling within as well as across state lines is constitutionally protected, the manner of travel is not. If you dont wish to go through TSA
then dont fly.. If you dont want a drivers license, then walk.

The US Supreme Court has ruled gun posession applies to the individual (again DC and Chicago cases). What is not protected is how a state can regulate
weapons that are sold within their state borders. Supreme Court rulings have made it very clear states retain the right to regulate weapons, up to and
including the manner in which those items can be bought and sold, along with paperwork requirements.

Under California Law a person must be licensed to sell a firearm and the person they are selling it to is required to go through a 10 day waiting
period while background checks are done. The Buyer must also have a firearms certificate in order to even purchase a firearm.

Maybe you should go through the link I gave that goes to California gun laws and read up before making any more comments / claims / accusations that
are not supported by law, the constitution or fact..

As a side note while I respect a persons ability to not like something, taking your arguments directly from the extreme sovereign citizen groups
literature (and I mean extreme, not the normal ones) is a bad idea. You cannot make your argument by cherry picking the laws and ignoring the parts
you dont agree with.

If you feel this strongly then maybe you should actually learn the law, learn how it works, in addition to knowing what your rights are and how those
rights work in conjunction with law. If you are going to invoke Supreme Court decisions then maybe you should read beyond only the ones that support
your position. You also need to quit with the supreme court ruling on "owning a gun is and of itself not a crime".

That constant reference, while ignoring the other Supreme Court case law decisions as well as California State law, is why your logic and argument
fails.

I and several others have laid it out to you in addition to links and reference to the laws (state up to federal). Ignoring them simply because you
dont agree with them does not invalidate them.

Your argument is along the same lines as others who complain about their 4th amendment right being violated by going through TSA screening. What they,
and you in this case, don't understand is -

While traveling within as well as across state lines is constitutionally protected, the manner of travel is not. If you dont wish to go through TSA
then dont fly.. If you dont want a drivers license, then walk.

The US Supreme Court has ruled gun posession applies to the individual (again DC and Chicago cases). What is not protected is how a state can regulate
weapons that are sold within their state borders. Supreme Court rulings have made it very clear states retain the right to regulate weapons, up to and
including the manner in which those items can be bought and sold, along with paperwork requirements.

Under California Law a person must be licensed to sell a firearm and the person they are selling it to is required to go through a 10 day waiting
period while background checks are done. The Buyer must also have a firearms certificate in order to even purchase a firearm.

Maybe you should go through the link I gave that goes to California gun laws and read up before making any more comments / claims / accusations that
are not supported by law, the constitution or fact..

As a side note while I respect a persons ability to not like something, taking your arguments directly from the extreme sovereign citizen groups
literature (and I mean extreme, not the normal ones) is a bad idea. You cannot make your argument by cherry picking the laws and ignoring the parts
you dont agree with.

So in conclusion - You are wrong, plain and simple.

WOW!!!

you actually think that the TSA is NOT a violation of the fourth amendment...Who would have guessed.

Have you READ the fourth amendment?

People have the right to remain secure in their persons, homes and effects without a warrant prescribed upon just cause.

Searching EVERYONE that walks through an airport is NOT just cause.

then you have the argument well, we're not profiling, we're giving equal treatment under the law....

That argument makes it even MORE of a blatant violation because you are actually STATING that you have ZERO cause, including anyone meeting a
description of someone who is known to have committed a crime.

how can you read the 4th amendment and NOT see that the TSA and everything it does is a violation.

The only way that airport security would NOT be a violation of the 4th amendment is if the airport owners decided what security to implement of their
own volition with no govt requirement or interference AND they implemented it themselves.

Then it becomes an agreement between an owner of private property and a person paying for access to their facilities.

When the govt is forcing it on us and conducting the searches themselves it is as blatant a violation of the 4th amendment as is possible.

you actually think that the TSA is NOT a violation of the fourth amendment...Who would have guessed.

Have you READ the fourth amendment?

I have and I come across it in my job every day. The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual, it applies to the government. Going to the
airport requires you going through a security checkpoint. If you opt not to consent to the search, you are free to leave and find an alternative
method of travel.

Originally posted by purplemer
People have the right to remain secure in their persons, homes and effects without a warrant prescribed upon just cause.

Yup - see answer above.

Originally posted by purplemer
Searching EVERYONE that walks through an airport is NOT just cause.

The searches are done by consent, not force. If you dont wish to go through a TSA security checkpoint, take the bus, ride a bike or walk.

Originally posted by purplemer
then you have the argument well, we're not profiling, we're giving equal treatment under the law....

Equal treatment under the law applies to the Judicial system. Law Enforcement falls under the Executive and the final say on any type of charge
belongs to the PA, not the officer. Secondly everyone goes through the basic an some of those are followed up on using other methods.

Completely within the criteria established by the Supreme Court dealing with the constitutionality of DWI checkpoints and falling into the reasonable
suspcion probable cause follow up. Finally the TSA are not commissioned Law Enforcement, which moves them into a completely different area of
requirements than if they were.

Originally posted by purplemer
That argument makes it even MORE of a blatant violation because you are actually STATING that you have ZERO cause, including anyone meeting a
description of someone who is known to have committed a crime.

Yeah... its not.
Brush up on the difference between commissioned law enforcement and non commisioned security. Then follow up with the laws that govern both of those
groups (police and security) paying special attention to private property that is open to the public.

Non commissioned security does not have to have any reason to make contact with an individual. They are not required to have a reason to tell a person
to leave the property. They can ask to search a person / their items. If the person refuses they can be told to leave the property.

Seriously if your going to argue your position you really need to learn the laws and how they apply. You need to understand your rights and how they
apply as well as when they apply.

Originally posted by purplemer
how can you read the 4th amendment and NOT see that the TSA and everything it does is a violation.

Because the TSA is not comissioned law enforcement nor are theyt subject to 42 USC 1983 because of that.

Originally posted by purplemer
The only way that airport security would NOT be a violation of the 4th amendment is if the airport owners decided what security to implement of their
own volition with no govt requirement or interference AND they implemented it themselves.

Incorrect... If you understood the 4th amendment you would know it applies only to the government (commissioned). You would also know the exceptions
to the 4th amendment, with the big one being consent. By flying you agree to go through a security check at the airport. SIf you dont like that idea,
you are not forced to go through it. It means you have to find another method to get to where you want.

Originally posted by purplemer
Then it becomes an agreement between an owner of private property and a person paying for access to their facilities.

Again you are ignoring the agreements by substituting your own logic. Airports and airlines sign agreements with each other for use of the various
facilities, including security. Even if you made it past the security checkpoint the airline can arbitrarily tell you they no longer want your
business, give you a refdun and send you on your way.

You are also ignoring the laws and regulations (state and federal levels) that govern the operations of not only airports but airlines.

Originally posted by purplemer
When the govt is forcing it on us and conducting the searches themselves it is as blatant a violation of the 4th amendment as is possible.

Jaden
__________________

Being you dont have to go through the security checkpoints, you arent being forced into anything. Being you dont have to buy airline tickets, you
arent being forced into anyhting. You retain the option of taking a bus, calling a cab, walking etc etc etc. It does not become forced simply because
you dont like the situation or laws involved.

The police received a call guns were being sold at a garage sale. Under California law there are requirements set forth by the state that governs
those actions. When a business decides to sell / buy guns, they agree to comply with California laws, which include the ability for law enforcement to
check to ensure the law is not being violated.

The police did not need a warrant to come onto their property.
The police did not search anything as the item was in plain sight.
When it was determined the gun were airsoft, the police left...

All the while you have 2 idiots who dont know the law spouting off and intentionally escalating the situation when its was not needed.

Saying things like "I've dealt with you" and "I know who you are" is not professional, insinuates criminality where presumably none exists, and
could be deemed as a personal attack or threat.

This ignoramus is a prime example of the imagined superiority these people have; dominance over others, control and manipulation.

That guy should be back in training based on this one video alone.

And I agree OP, know your rights in every instance. Groups like Cop Watch are going to be needed more and more in the coming years, and they'll need
public help to bring instances like this - and more severe breaches - to public attention.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
And you have a cop insinuating criminality by stating "I've dealt with you before" and telling her "I know who you are".

Making that statement does not insinuate criminality. She is a member fo copblock / copwatch. Both groups listen to police scanners and show up on
scenes to video record the police. An action (depending on the situation) that is valid to do.

Sign up for either one of those sites and you will see people describing their encounters with police, just as the female has done in the past. Her
attitude out of the gate goes hand in hand with her comments about her encounter with law enforcement in the past.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
If they were my local cops, I would be defensive and demanding them off my property too. On this video I would be filing a complaint of threatening
statements and intimidation.

You could request all you want however it wouldn't go anywhere. It was a valid call to check on what were reported as guns being sold at a garage
sale. An action prohibited by California gun laws.

A male present can be heard requesting an officer contact a supervisor and to have them respond. What did the lady say?

She said no and went back to her I want you off my property routine.

Her last exchange with police starts at 01:55.

She tells the officer she has dealt with him and then identifies herself as being a member of copwatch. Again she refuses to have a supervisor to
respond beacuse "Their supervisor is their buddy".

I would not be surprised if she, the male or her daughter were the ones who called the police. Before the cop even gets out of the car he is being
recorded by the daughter. The reason I point that out is its more difficult to challenge the reason the daughter had her phone recording before he
gets out of the car. Had the female / male been the one then people would have seen it for what it is -

An intentional setup to record the police while claiming they broke the law.

The police did not violate any laws nor they did violate any persons rights.

Amazing the video ended up on the internet while no complaint against the PD was filed. Supporting my argument that the civilians in question are
clueless about the law is the title she chose for her video.

It was not a police raid in any sense of the defintion / word.

If you dont mind me asking where are you getting threatening statements and imtimidation from? Not being an ass by the way I am just curious how you
got that out of the video.

Saying things like "I've dealt with you" and "I know who you are" is not professional, insinuates criminality where presumably none exists, and
could be deemed as a personal attack or threat.

This ignoramus is a prime example of the imagined superiority these people have; dominance over others, control and manipulation.

That guy should be back in training based on this one video alone.

And I agree OP, know your rights in every instance. Groups like Cop Watch are going to be needed more and more in the coming years, and they'll need
public help to bring instances like this - and more severe breaches - to public attention.

Unfortunately, the training they're receiving is telling them that this is ok. That they have authority they were never given.

So it allows the ones joined to be bullies because they were picked on as kids and have thin skin to abuse people, and it prevents the good cops from
knowing what their authority is and where it stops.

Then you have a corrupt judicial and legislative system on top of that that passes illegal laws or laws that violate past precedent established at the
higher courts.

It sucks, and there is only one possible eventual outcome and that outcome is not good for anyone...

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Unfortunately, the training they're receiving is telling them that this is ok. That they have authority they were never given.

Please support this with evidence. Law Enforcement at the State level and down receives their authority from the State Constitution which is then
further defined by Municpal charters in conjunction with state law. They abide by 42 USC 1983 and are subject to all US Supreme Court rulings, which
if you check will see many when it comes to the 4th amendment (with the most recent being Arizona Vs. Gant).

Originally posted by Masterjaden
So it allows the ones joined to be bullies because they were picked on as kids and have thin skin to abuse people, and it prevents the good cops from
knowing what their authority is and where it stops.

And people who dont know / understand the law claim bully because they cant refute the argument / action with law. The call to the police reporting
the guns creates reasonable suspicion to respond to the scene to investigate if any laws are being violated. The police in this case were within their
authority as well as in full compliance with local state and federal laws / case law.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Then you have a corrupt judicial and legislative system on top of that that passes illegal laws or laws that violate past precedent established at the
higher courts.

So now the system is corrupt because it doesnt work the way you think it should.. You dimiss laws that you dont like because you think they are
illegal...

You do understand that when something is appealed, regardless of level, that a judges ruling can have differing affects right? Depending on the
argument a judge can make a wide ruling, affecting the law itself and anyone who has been affected by it. They can also issue a narrow ruling which
only applies to the case at hand.

Appeals courts are not trial courts. To appeal there must be a constitutional (state / federal) or procedural error that occured during the initial
trial in order to appeal a decision.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
It sucks, and there is only one possible eventual outcome and that outcome is not good for anyone...

Jaden

Especially when they dont know or understand the law, case law, Supreme Court rulings, their rights and how those rights work.

Acting impulsively and without a solid base / understanding of all the facts involved does indeed create an outcome that is not good...

There is nothing wrong with holding police / government accountible. If you are going to do it it would be best if the person making the challenge
actually knows the law from top to bottom and not just bits and pieces that ignore sections they dont understand or like.

How can 1 single American even consider siding with the cops on this.... This is why we are in a $#!+ hole today, because of individual smucks that
have been brainwashed into thinking it's ok for government agencies to run a muck as long as it's within their own moral parameters.... I don't care
if they had a replica nuclear war head or replica human skin suits at their garage sale....

The 4th amendment to our #ing Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.